I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

So if the memorials weren't cross shaped, this would all be fine? I'm pretty big on separation of church and state, but this is just nitpicky. Call me when they start erecting crosses in front of courthouses or schools.

To be fair, the roads are public property. I'd rather just not put anything on the side of the road as opposed to having to deal with every group petitioning to put their own insignias up all over the highway system. That's what cemeteries and memorial gardens are for.

That being said, if you are so offended by something as simple as a little white marker on the side of the road that you feel the need to sue, you should have a buckshot lunch.

Pocket Ninja:I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

I was always told that those crosses were there not only in memory of people, but also to serve as a warning to other drivers that due to carelessness or a bad area in the road, someone lost their lives at this place.....Memorials aren't there for the dead, they are there for the living.

I know this ruling is probably limited to only those crosses put up by the Highway Patrol (haven't read the opinion, but I would venture a guess the ruling is based on separation of church and state), but how will it affect private parties who do it when they lose a child, etc?

ShillinTheVillain:To be fair, the roads are public property. I'd rather just not put anything on the side of the road as opposed to having to deal with every group petitioning to put their own insignias up all over the highway system. That's what cemeteries and memorial gardens are for.

That being said, if you are so offended by something as simple as a little white marker on the side of the road that you feel the need to sue, you should have a buckshot lunch.

Who said it's about being offended? It's about the principal of the thing, which you seem to share.

Pocket Ninja:I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

FTFA:A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the 14 large crosses would be viewed by most passing motorists as "government's endorsement of Christianity."

"We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion," concluded the Denver, Colorado-based court. The state of Utah and a private trooper association have the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.

I'm all for separation of church and state, but here's a point where the judicial system, in a pedantic exercise, is confusing state endorsement of a particular religion with societal norms or culture. Yes, the cross symbolizes Christianity, but it also symbolizes a memorial to those who've passed on. When you see a road-side cross you also understand that it's a memorial. I'm not offended by the idea of a memorial, even if it's put there by the government.

LegalHeaven:I was always told that those crosses were there not only in memory of people, but also to serve as a warning to other drivers that due to carelessness or a bad area in the road, someone lost their lives at this place.....Memorials aren't there for the dead, they are there for the living.

I know this ruling is probably limited to only those crosses put up by the Highway Patrol (haven't read the opinion, but I would venture a guess the ruling is based on separation of church and state), but how will it affect private parties who do it when they lose a child, etc?

No one gives a shiat when a private citizen does it. However IIRC, and correct me if I'm wrong, I thought I read road side memorials are a distraction to drivers. Distractions=bad results.

We can get something as innocuous as a cross on a highway ruled unconstitutional, yet the very clearly unconstitutional 'drunk driving' checkpoints continue unabated. If only memorial crosses made the state money those bereaving families could have their way.

This is an example of political correctness run amuck. I don't care for religion ... but putting a marker on the side of the road to mark a location of a loved one's passing, it shouldn't be a big deal. It's more then likely that these monuments were placed there by family and friends - and not by a church or a religious organization.

/the bat-shait insane-ness is getting out of control - on both sides of the political spectrum.

There's nothing wrong with putting up markers for a state trooper's death (though it is a big waste of money), but there is a big problem when you're using obnoxious and completely religious symbols like that cross. Like the article says, Mormons don't even USE crosses, making it even more baffling.

DarnoKonrad:Who said it's about being offended? It's about the principal of the thing, which you seem to share.

I agree with the principle. I just don't understand what goes through the mind of somebody who is driving down the road and sees one of those and feels the need to take it to court. Pick your battles, people.

Fark Me To Tears:Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.

I'm all for separation of church and state, but here's a point where the judicial system, in a pedantic exercise, is confusing state endorsement of a particular religion with societal norms or culture. Yes, the cross symbolizes Christianity, but it also symbolizes a memorial to those who've passed on. When you see a road-side cross you also understand that it's a memorial. I'm not offended by the idea of a memorial, even if it's put there by the government.

Actually, the markers at Arlington are your standard tombstone shape with an engraved indicator of the deceased's religion. You're thinking of the graves at Flanders. Don't worry, Cheney made the exact same mistake, so you're in good company.

Pocket Ninja:I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

I dunno. Some think it is the place where the soul was released into the ether.

username101:There's nothing wrong with putting up markers for a state trooper's death (though it is a big waste of money), but there is a big problem when you're using obnoxious and completely religious symbols like that cross. Like the article says, Mormons don't even USE crosses, making it even more baffling.

Well, some people can look at a cross and think "grave marker" without thinking "obnoxious and completely religious". Apparently the Mormons are more open-minded than you.

Yeah_Right:This is an example of political correctness run amuck. I don't care for religion ... but putting a marker on the side of the road to mark a location of a loved one's passing, it shouldn't be a big deal. It's more then likely that these monuments were placed there by family and friends - and not by a church or a religious organization.

/the bat-shait insane-ness is getting out of control - on both sides of the political spectrum.

The article clearly states that it was the "Utah Highway Patrol Association" that put those crosses.

And besides, it isn't roadside crosses that are unconstitutional, it's obnoxiously large and very obvious ones that are, because, being on the side of a highway and clearly visible, having Utah allow them is essentially Utah supporting Christianity, as highways are public, not private, land.

Oh give me a farking break. Crosses are generally recognized as a memorial symbol without having to have a religious undertone. While they might be right in asking for them to be taken down is this really worth the damn effort? Being Utah and all I'm sure they could have found better things to aim for rather than pissing on dead troopers.

B-b-b-but Pocket Ninja:, If people don't have their voodoomumbojumbo made up fake B.S. pseudo religeous rites, then you're denying them the sanctity of voodoomumbojumbo made up fake B.S. pseudo religeous rites. Which are constitutionally neglected.

Yeah_Right:This is an example of political correctness run amuck. I don't care for religion ... but putting a marker on the side of the road to mark a location of a loved one's passing, it shouldn't be a big deal. It's more then likely that these monuments were placed there by family and friends - and not by a church or a religious organization.

The policy is that private citizens are not allowed to put permanent displays along the roadside of any sort. That is a good policy. The government isn't supposed to erect religious displays, this is also a good policy. Together they mean no roadside crosses. Put up one of those historical markers like you see for all the civil war battle sites if you want to mark the spot.